On 1/30/2014 6:31 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: > The arbitrator would presumably have some rules about what is or isn't > an acceptable form of payment. Do you think this puts unnecessary trust into a third party? If the merchant instead signed and agreed to the unsigned transactions before they were broadcast (as in my OP), these arbitration concerns disappear.
> HTTP has response codes for submission of the Payment message. We > could add signing to PaymentACK and other things in future, if that > turns out to be insufficient in practice. HTTP isn't the only message delivery mechanism. Merchants can also lie: reply with 200 OK and an empty body. Or, reply with 404 not found and broadcast transactions anyway. Cheers, Chuck ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ WatchGuard Dimension instantly turns raw network data into actionable security intelligence. It gives you real-time visual feedback on key security issues and trends. Skip the complicated setup - simply import a virtual appliance and go from zero to informed in seconds. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=123612991&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
